Why is sendmail is part of the system and not a package?
gnemmi at gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 19:03:19 UTC 2009
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 4:32:45 pm Erik Norgaard wrote:
> Jonathan McKeown wrote:
> > Just as a matter of interest, if you want to rip sendmail out of
> > the base system, which MTA would you like to replace it with? Or
> > are you suggesting the system ship with no way to handle mail?
> This thread moving of topic from OP, but it is always fair to debate
> what should be considered a base system. Is an MTA a requirement or a
> remnant from history?
Contrary to your belief the thread isn't moving of topic from OP, it's
just taking the same default route it has been taking for ages:
1) telling the OP the OS needs an MTA
2) telling the OP he can replace the default MTA
3) telling the OP he can remove given MTA from base
4) telling the OP about "historical reason"
5) Not telling the OP why has FreeBSD has left so many historical reason
behind to persuit new goals but retained Sendmail as the default
MTA "for historical reasons".
Sorry .. but that's the way it goes every time someone asks the same
> And if an MTA is a requirement then asking which one is the best
> choice is also a fair question. An equally fair answer could be
> whichever change requires the least work.
> No different than asking, why is NIS still in the base? Why no ldap?
> why BIND, but no http? Why NFS? etc...
Let me save you the trouble; the answer to mot of that questions will
be: historical reasons and that other solutions can "can only dream of
enjoying a fraction of the respect that BIND and Sendmail command in
Believe it or not ...
> I think the only void answer is because of tradition, that just seems
> to show that noone really remembers why some choice was made.
> BR, Erik
More information about the freebsd-questions